Syndicate

What kind of Palestinian state in 2011?

Palestinian children hold giant keys to represent the homes their
families lost.

By Rafeef Ziadah

April 12, 2010 -- The Bullet -- In December 2007, the Palestinian National Authority (PA), in close
consultation with donor states and institutions like the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, proposed the Palestinian Reform and
Development Plan (PRDP), a program based on “rebuilding the Palestinian
national institutions” and “developing the Palestinian public and
private sectors.”[1]

To augment this plan, the PA further
presented in August 2009 a program titled Palestine: Ending the
Occupation, Establishing the State. This latter program was much
more explicit about a time frame for the declaration of a Palestinian
state.[2] Salam Fayyad, current
unelected PA prime minister and former World Bank employee, put forward
this document (henceforth the Fayyad Plan) insisting that, despite the
occupation, Palestinians need to be building the “infrastructure for a
future state”. The report calls upon “our people, including all
political parties and civil society, to realize this fundamental
objective and unite behind the state-building agenda over the next two
years”. Fayyad's intention is to unilaterally declare a Palestinian
state in 2011 based on the June 4, 1967, borders.

The importance of the PRDP is signaled by the fact that international
aid to the PA is contingent on implementation. A specific bank account
under the control of the World Bank was set up for this purpose. In the
Canadian context, the Canadian International Development Aid (CIDA)
website explains that “programming for the West Bank and Gaza is aligned
with the requirements identified in the Palestinian Reform and
Development Plan for 2008-2011”.[3]

Essentially, Fayyad's PA must follow the dictates of the World Bank
and Western powers to assure access to funds and, so far, it seems
extremely willing to do so. The boycott of Hamas by Western powers (the
Canadian state being the first to cut aid) and the siege on Gaza serve
as an example to the West Bank PA leadership of what would await them if
they stray from this model of state building.

In an interview with Ma'an news in July 2009, Fayyad
explained:

The basic and fundamental objective is that two years
from now, anyone, looking at us from any corner of the world ... it will
be very difficult for him or her not to conclude that Palestinians are
indeed ready for statehood, and if the occupation is still around then,
that will be the only thing that is abnormal and that needs to end.

Understanding the logic of the Fayyad Plan is critical to assessing
the current state of the Palestinian struggle. Often the analytical
emphasis is placed on Israeli action, while internal Palestinian
politics are ignored. However, the shifts taking place within the
Palestinian Occupied Territories, such as the increased power of a
Palestinian elite class, and the hand picking of Fayyad to implement
neoliberal reforms, are vital to understand because they pose
significant obstacles to Palestinian prospects for self-determination.

‘Economic development first’, statehood Later

Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State is a
54-page report explaining Fayyad's vision, peppered with every World
Bank catch phrase imaginable from “institution-building” to “efficiency”
leading all the way to “human development”. Once the various layers of
rhetoric are cleared, the basic idea is to have a fully functioning,
neoliberal state apparatus in place before a Palestinian state is
declared. Fayyad's program completely adheres to the World Bank paradigm
of fiscal austerity, open markets for foreign investment and an
emphasis on export-led development.

The neoliberal vision espoused by Fayyad works in tandem with the
Israeli government's plans for Palestinians and integrates the occupation in the planning for a future Palestinian state. It was
Netanyahu who announced in 2008 his intention to “weave an economic
peace alongside the political process which will give a stake in peace
for the moderate elements in the Palestinian society”.[4] This “economic peace” is one that guarantees
security and access to Palestinian markets to Israel – without the need
to take any responsibility for the population.

It is important to note that Salam Fayyad is not an elected primem inister, but was appointed by PA president Mahmoud Abbas (whose own
term in office has been extended without elections). Fayyad's first
appointment, on June 15, 2007, was justified on the basis of “national
emergency” after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. He has not been
confirmed by the Palestinian Legislative Council, the Palestinian
Authority's parliament.

The neoliberal logic of the World Bank is not
foreign to Fayyad. He was a World Bank employee from 1987–1995. He later
was the IMF representative to the Palestinian National Authority until
2001. A good gauge of Fayyad's popularity among Palestinians is the 2006
Palestinian legislative elections where he ran for a new party that he
helped found called The Third Way. At the time he received less than 3%
of the vote. Although many have challenged the legality of his position,
he is the individual that Western powers have chosen to implement their
plan for Palestinian "statehood". He has been showered with praise from
various leaders, including Israel's president Shimon Peres who called
him a “Palestinian Ben Gurion”.

The Fayyad Plan has gained tremendous support from the Western
powers. Shortly after the plan's publication the US Obama administration
announced a US$20 million grant to back the effort. Congress approved a
$200 million deposit into the PA treasury. Since the treasury falls
under Fayyad's direct control he now has effective control over the West
Bank economy and the political process. It is increasingly evident he
is being groomed to take over from PA president Mahmoud Abbas.

Fayyad is certainly a creative thinker. He has come up with a
one-of-a-kind model for achieving statehood: instead of resisting the
occupation, the focus is placed on building state institutions and a
functional neoliberal economy. This will somehow make the occupying
power grant Palestinians independence because they will realise that the
colonised are civilised enough to have "good fiscal policy" and an "efficient public sector".

This of course begs the simple question: a state over what
territories? With the continued building of settlements by Israel, with the
apartheid wall and its network of Israeli-only roads – all that is left
are Palestinian bantustans. Fayyad's plan does envision development in
areas of the West Bank that Israel fully controls: how this will be
achieved without Israeli approval is not explained. But, for the sake of
argument, let us suspend the reality on the ground, pretend that there
isn't an occupation, and analyse the logic of this Fayyad PA vision.

Less public welfare, more ‘security’

The Palestinian economy has been devastated by the continued Israeli
occupation. Israel's control over borders and restriction on movement
means that a viable Palestinian economy cannot grow. Israel has also
worked diligently to replace Palestinian labour in its own markets with
migrant labour so it could sever any reliance on Palestinian workers (as
strikes were an effective form of resistance in the first Intifada).
The PA, as it emerged after the Oslo Accords in 1994, was not designed
to achieve economic independence from Israel by any means; rather, the
agreements cemented Israel's control over the West Bank. In the 1994
Paris Protocol, for example, an economic agreement signed between the
Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, the PA agreed to cede
ultimate control over imports and exports to Israel. After the election
of Hamas and the cutting of aid from donor countries – it became
glaringly apparent that as an entity the PA is fully reliant on outside
funding for its survival.

Any talk of economic development for the West Bank that enables
Palestinians to survive the reality of Israeli closures and to become
self-reliant in order to sustain the resistance and remain on the land,
would be more than welcome. However, the Fayyad Plan has nothing to do
with developing a sustainable Palestinian economy. The economic
development model put forward in his program is a normalisation model
reliant upon persuading Israel and the international community that
Palestinians could be both good trade partners and cheap labour.

More specifically, the Fayyad's Plan is designed to cut back
public-sector spending on welfare and social needs, while simultaneously
strengthening the security apparatus of the PA. One need only look at
the economic reforms Fayyad's PA has implemented thus far.

To illustrate, the World Bank presented in 2009 a progress report on
the implementation of the PRDP titled, A Palestinian State in Two
Years: Intuitions for Economic Revival. The report explains that one of
the most important reforms the PA has implemented is to “control the
public sector wage bill”. This component is essentially a wage freeze
and slashing of the public sector, designed to “maintain the 2009 public
sector wage bill in line with the 2009 annual budget and reduce the
wage bill to less than 22 percent of GDP”.[5]

Another "reform" is to “institute measures to increase collection of
electricity bills from users and to continue to distribute at least
20,000 pre-paid electricity meters and reduce net lending to 6 percent
of GDP”. This shift is designed to force a population – already
impoverished due to the occupation – to live without electricity if they
do not pay their bills. It is worth noting that the West Bank depends
on the Israeli Electric Company (IEC) to supply the majority of its
power through three substations located in the Ariel settlement, the
Atarot industrial settlement and the area C region near Hebron.[6] Essentially, the PA is collecting the bills
for the Israeli company. The fact that the power stations are also
located inside illegal settlements, means that the program is de facto
accepting that settlements will exist in the future Palestinian state.

The PA has also introduced pension reform, where they will adopt “an
action plan to reduce PA short-term pension liabilities and begin to
implement the plan by including measures in the 2010 budget that will
reduce PA pension liabilities and put the PA pension schemes gradually
back on a path to ensure their financial sustainability”. This measure
is designed to reduce the pensions they are paying out to people who
used to work for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the
Palestinian Authority. Not only does this have a financial impact, but
an accompanying political aim. The Fayyad government is forcing many
members of the different factions (mainly Fatah with the largest share
of PA jobs) to take their pensions in lump sums and leave their current
posts. This is a political cleansing of the old guard of Fatah from the
public sector, to be replaced by a younger generation of technocrats
more in tune with World Bank standards.

The neoliberal program that the PA is pursuing thus promises severe
cutbacks to the social provisions of the authority. But, as with
similar neoliberal programs around the world, this should not be
interpreted as a cutback to the state itself. Concurrent with the
slashing of social spending, the budget for the repressive arm of the
state is skyrocketing. As the donors poured money into Fayyad's plan,
$109 million was committed in 2009 to finance an expanded training
program for the PA security forces. These security forces have been
under Fayyad's control since 2005, supervised by US Lt.-Gen. Keith
Dayton. To make the point that what's being created is by no means an
independent security force for a future sovereign state, all the new
personnel are vetted by Israel's secret security apparatus, the Shin
Bet, before being able to join the force.

According to the World Bank report, of the 2790 increase in
employment in the Palestinian Authority in 2009, there was a 1325
increase in members of the security forces. In other words, nearly half
of the number of jobs created in the Palestinian Authority were in the
security sector. Over the same period of time, the Ministry of Health
lost 94 workers.

The same report stressed:

Undoubtedly, one most important recent developments in
the West Bank has been the continued improvement in the security
situation. There have been few acts of large-scale violence in the past
year and the PA is pushing forward with its efforts to professionalize
its security forces and expand their operations throughout the West
Bank. With the help of the office of the U.S. Security Coordinator under
the leadership of Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the PA has trained and
equipped three new battalions of security forces and is currently
training a fourth. These new forces have been deployed in cities like
Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem, Ramallah, and parts of Hebron.[7]

In a speech to the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, Dayton
explained:

What we have created are new men ... [men who] believe
that their mission is to build a Palestinian state ... Upon the return
of these new men of Palestine, they have shown motivation, discipline
and professionalism, and they have made such a difference – and I am not
making this up – that senior IDF commanders ask me frequently: ‘how
many more of these new Palestinians can you generate, and how quickly,
because they are our way to leave the West Bank’.[8]

In short, the Dayton-led security plan is designed to assist Israel's military in controlling the population without a direct physical
presence in Palestinian towns and villages. The training for this force
includes a four-month program at the Jordanian International Police
Training Center, staffed by US and Jordanian personnel (interestingly
Jordan has become a base for training different security forces across
the region, the main one being the Iraqi security forces). Dayton
explained that “the US-developed curriculum focuses on human rights,
proper use of force, riot control, civil disturbances, unit cohesion,
and leadership”.

There have been numerous reports of full security cooperation between
the Israeli military and Fayyad's Dayton-trained forces. Recently, when
there were calls for demonstrations in the West Bank against settlement
activities in Jerusalem, the PA police warned that no demonstrations
would be allowed without permits. The idea of a population under
occupation seeking permits from its own (non-elected) authorities to
demonstrate against the occupiers speaks volumes to the nature and
function of the PA.

The main security challenge Dayton boasts about in his speech though
is "Operation Cast Lead", Israel's brutal war against the population in
Gaza. Hamas had called for "days of rage" across the West Bank during
the war, but “the professionalism and competence of the new security
forces guaranteed a measured and disciplined approach. They allowed
demonstrations but prevented them from becoming violent, keeping the
protesters away from Israelis". Dayton continues that “the IDF even felt
comfortable enough to deploy major units away from the West Bank in
order to help in Gaza”.

Dayton, was frank when speaking to the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that it is an international
team leading the effort to build these security forces. He explained
that “its ongoing work in the Israeli-Palestinian arena has been shaped
by significant contributions from Canada, the United Kingdom, and
Turkey”. The Canadian role, in particular, is disturbing, aside from
recently shifting aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
(UNRWA) to the Palestinian Authority for the purpose of strengthening
the PA position, according to Dayton “the Canadian contingent – which
includes highly proficient Arabic linguists – travels about the West
Bank freely” and their work is invaluable to the mission.

Trade cooperation and border management

Explicit in Fayyad's economic development program is an emphasis on
setting up the West Bank infrastructure for trade with Israel. The World
Bank report on the Fayyad Plan is very clear about this point, noting
that “for the recent upturn in the West Bank economy to translate into a
sustained economic recovery, the relaxation of movement and access
restrictions within the West Bank must be supplemented by further
opening that allows a vigorous revival of Palestinian trade with Israel
and the rest of the world.”[9]

From its side, Israel has completed construction of six commercial
crossings between Israel and the West Bank. Almost all Palestinian
commercial goods are required to be shipped through these crossings
using a "back-to-back system". The World Bank goes on to say that
“cooperation between the Government of Israel and the PA is critical in
order for the PA to establish a presence at the borders of the West Bank
and Gaza to ensure that it captures a high proportion of what is owed
in value added tax and import duties”.[10] Part of increasing "fiscal sustainability",
according to the report, is the PA's ability to collect domestic tax
revenues for the future Palestinian state.

The absurdity of the situation becomes even clearer. The World Bank
continues on to say that the “PA is currently moving to establish a
competent border management system that can be put in place at the
commercial crossings and the borders of the future state”. The PA has
even formed a border management authority. As a dependent economy, the
Palestinian Authority will be reliant on imports from Israel in order to
sustain itself. The role of the PA will not be to control its borders,
but to "manage" them. At the same time – because once a state is
declared and "peace" is achieved, normal trade relations would commence
between Israel, the PA and the rest of the Arab World – the
PA-controlled West Bank state becomes an entry point for Israeli goods
into the rest of the Arab world.

In this way, the Fayyad Plan is nothing but a normalisation
mechanism, that evades the political and social conditions of the occupation. It is a preparatory stage for establishing proper trade
routes between Israel and the rest of the Arab world.

What kind of state?

There is a growing consensus among the major powers around
establishing a Palestinian state. In his speech in Cairo in June 2009,
US President Barack Obama was clear about his objectives:

The only resolution is for the aspirations of both
sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each
live in peace and security. That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's
interest, America's interest, and the world's interest ... now is the time
for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian
Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that
serve the needs of its people.[11]

Money has been dedicated to this project and "moderate" Palestinians
have been chosen in order to achieve this goal. While Israel has spoken
out against unilateral declaration of a state, it too is happy to
see an "economic peace" with Palestinians that guarantees it the
territories and their resources without having to govern the people.

The real issue is what kind of state is being put forward? Looking at
any other Arab dictatorship gives a strong indication of what awaits
Palestinians if such a state is declared: failed economies, mired in
debt to Western powers and the World Bank, with enormous security
apparatuses to keep the "peace".

The Fayyad Plan, instead of challenging the occupation, seeks to
integrate its policies and infrastructure into a future state. Fayyad's
effort to create normal economic life in the West Bank compliments the
vision of the Israeli state. It is aimed at silencing Palestinians with
employment in a setting of economic desperation (within joint Israel/PA
industrial zones) and no real national self-determination.

The Palestinian struggle for liberation, however, has never been an
issue of simply statehood. The Palestinian struggle is an anti-colonial,
anti-racist one seeking justice for an indigenous population that was
ethnically cleansed from their land in 1948. In all these discussions
about a state, the right of return of Palestinian refugees is sidelined.
In PA documents, there is now only a referral to a "just solution", and
not a "right of return". Any proposed state or entity for Palestinians
that actually ignores the majority of the Palestinian population, namely
the refugees, cannot be a basis for a just peace. This proposed state
also does not address the discrimination that is faced by Palestinian
citizens of Israel. Some will claim that demanding the right of return
or equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel is utopian, and that
Palestinians should accept whatever they are being offered because of
the so-called "consensus of the international community". What fuels
anti-colonial movements though is not an acceptance of what colonisers
have to offer – rather a defiance to demand the seemingly impossible and
to fight for it.

While there is an attempt to narrow the Palestinian struggle to an
issue of building state institutions in the West Bank (while Gaza
remains under a brutal siege), the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions
(BDS) movement speaks to the unity of the Palestinian nation. The BDS
campaign demands rights for Palestinian refugees, those living under
occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, and Palestinian citizens of Israel. We
are witnessing the emergence of a Palestinian alternative to the failed
paradigm of normalisation and neoliberal development that has come to
animate the PA. It will take some time for this new vision to
crystallise, especially when the traditional Palestinian left is at its
weakest point historically and seemingly more invested in being the
go between for Hamas and Fatah than in being an alternative voice in the
Palestinian political arena. However, slowly but surely, new political
formations are emerging calling for a return to the basic tenets of the
Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

The normalisation process embedded in the Fayyad Plan stands in stark
contrast to the growing BDS movement. On the one hand, Palestinian
grassroots movements are asking the world to boycott Israel until it
complies with international law. On the other, Fayyad promotes the
normalisation of relations with Israel. It is important to stress here
that the BDS campaign did not come out of thin air – there is a strong
history of anti-normalisation activity within Palestinian society. The
BDS campaign is not "leaderless" – it has a basis and structures within
the Occupied Territories in the Boycott National Committee (BNC). It is
certainly a young movement attempting to build some coherence within
Palestinian ranks after the utter confusion of the so-called Oslo peace
process. It must be supported, not simply from a solidarity framework,
but as part of the global struggle against neoliberal hegemony.

The Fayyad Plan for "economic development" currently faces the same
problem Israel has faced for years: the Palestinian people. No matter
how hard the Palestinian Authority has tried, it is difficult to sell
Palestinians this idea of a truncated state. It is easy for Palestinians
living in the West Bank to understand, just from looking out their
windows, that Israel is creating facts on the ground that make a
Palestinian state in the 1967 borders impossible.

Of course, there are those benefiting from neoliberal changes to the
economy who will say that under Fayyad there is "order" and he is
building "infrastructure for a future state". They will boast about the
drivers on the streets of Ramallah now wearing seat belts. Yes, our bantustan warden comes in World Bank garb and insists on "order" within
the confines of our ever-shrinking ghetto. But he remains an appointed
prison warden, there to manage the implementation of apartheid. And if
Palestinian history tells us anything – it is that those who give up on
basic Palestinian rights have a tendency to be ousted by the people.

5.
World Bank Report: A Palestinian State in Two Years: Institutions for
Economic Revival Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison
Committee. September 22, 2009. p.15.

6.
For a good overview on this and other joint PA/Israel initiatives see
Stop the Wall, “Development or normalization? A critique of West Bank
development approaches and projects” at www.stopthewall.org.